p.1 #1 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I was reading a thread recently where someone claimed the 70-200/2.8 Z with the 2x tc at 400 mm is as sharp as the 100-500 at 400. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
p.1 #2 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
There is an extensive review from Gordon Laing/Cameralabs and a few other videos on YT comparing the both.
From my (limited) experience from using a 2x extender on the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GMII: no, they are not on the same level. Especially when it comes to using it on the long end.
I’ve used the 100-500 extensively on the last safari, and it’s incredibly sharp. Works well with the 1.4x extender, considering that you cannot use anything shorter than 300 (420) mm of focal length, what is a bummer.
Other then that, the 100-500 is one of the best WL Zoom lenses on the market.
p.1 #3 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I had the 100-500 a few years ago, so I didn't have it at the same time with the 70-200 Z. After I got rid of the 100-500, I also used the RF 100-400 for a couple years, and pound for pound, that lens is great.
Once I got the 70-200 Z however I got rid of the 100-400 and haven't looked back. I don't know for sure if the 70-200 Z is as good or better than the 100-500, but it is amazingly sharp in its native range and even still with both the 1.4X and 2X its really good. I would say it's very close to the 100-500 with the extenders and sharper without. I use it in all three configurations depending what I need out of it, and I don't have any complaints. If you don't need more than a 400mm F5.6, then I think it is a real viable option. My primary use is kids sports though, so YMMV (for indoors its primarily in the native 70-200mm range but sometimes with the 1.4X, and outdoors primarily with the 1.4X or 2.0X depending on what I need and lighting).
p.1 #4 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
That Gordon Laing review is excellent indeed.
I think the take away is that using the 2x extender, the 70-200 at 400 is about as sharp as the 100-500 at 400mm. In the corners the 100-500 is a bit sharper.
Standalone without extenders of course the 70-200 is very sharp.
The 100-500 is very good, but not incredibly sharp. Thats what I’d call the 400 2.8 wide open at 400mm (I have both lenses so I can compare). So it depends on your reference.
Right now I’m thinking of replacing my original rf 70-200 with a Z version and sell the 100-500 since I already have both extenders and don’t use the 100-500 that much (even on wildlife trips I tend to prefer the 70-200 + 400mm + extenders). Also for my line of job (events) the Z should be great where I can make at a bit longer when needed with the 1.4 extender
p.1 #5 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
IMO the major advantage of the 70-200 Z over the 100-500 is the 'weight' of its zoom ring. It's just right. It's light enough without being too light. The 100-500's zoom ring requires a lot more effort to move through its range. More torque. Because of this I found the additional rotational force I had to put on the zoom ring made it more difficult to keep up with moving subjects. It was frankly frustrating to use in this capacity and found I kind of had to use it as a prime lens by choosing a focal length and sticking with it. With the Z I can zoom with one or two fingers, with barely any force, which makes subject tracking while zooming easier. If you're primarily at the long end of the range and barely zooming, then this will have less impact on your use of either of these.
p.1 #6 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
Not a sharpness point, but I know Davision on Youtube really disliked how the 70-200 Z + 2X TC handled bright highlights (he had upgraded from the EF 100-400 II). Not sure if this is a consideration for OP, but it was something I found notable when recalling 70-200 Z talk.
As I mentioned there, the two lenses are basically indistinguishable to me, so I take whichever I think is my "primary focal length" - am I going after long and don't really need fast, or do I need fast and maybe from time to time also long?
p.1 #10 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
bigreen505 wrote:
Thanks! I wish that search worked better.
If you ever want to search this site, or any site, with Google, you can do the following. Go to google.com, or the search in your Chrome browser if you use it and plug this into the search bar:
site:fredmiranda.com canon 70-200mm
What this is doing is telling Google that you want to scope your search to the following site, thus you start with "site:". After that, add the URL of the site you want to search (eg, fredmiranda.com). Finally, add a space and the text string you'd like to search for within that website (eg, canon 70-200mm). Your search results will be like this link.
I'm sure this can be done with other search engines, but I don't know the method.
p.1 #11 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
Bit the bullet and bought a second hand 70-200 z in black in mint condition for a great price; picking it up after my holiday. Topics like these really help in making decisions like this! Cant wait to test it.
p.1 #12 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
Great choice, great colour! I also got black and much prefer it for event work. It's such a nice lens to use and works well with the 1.4x. Haven't yet found a downside to this lens, or this TC combo.
p.1 #13 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
rscheffler wrote:
Great choice, great colour! I also got black and much prefer it for event work. It's such a nice lens to use and works well with the 1.4x. Haven't yet found a downside to this lens, or this TC combo.
Looking forward to it! It seems like a very versatile lens. I shoot events and portraits for a living so it'll be used the most there. Since I already have the 1.4 and 2x extenders (for my rf 400) I can use those when I need the extra reach. On my wildlife trips (which I do for fun and occasionally as photo host), I've went from using the 100-500 + 400 to using the (original) rf 70-200 + 400 as ideal combo, but now I probably will sell the 100-500 since the Z 70-200 is so versatile and useable with extenders.
p.1 #14 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I have the Z and the 2x extender. It's overall just as sharp as the Rf 100-500 but the 100-500 is just barely sharper in the corners. You'd have to pixel peep to see that.
I posted photos on reddit with this combo on my r6 mark iii. I cant link it here but if you search "Reddit [New Gear] Canon RF 70-200 F/2.8 L Z + RF 2X Extender" on google, you'll find it
p.1 #15 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
LegendaryKnight wrote:
I have the Z and the 2x extender. It's overall just as sharp as the Rf 100-500 but the 100-500 is just barely sharper in the corners. You'd have to pixel peep to see that.
I posted photos on reddit with this combo on my r6 mark iii. I cant link it here but if you search "Reddit [New Gear] Canon RF 70-200 F/2.8 L Z + RF 2X Extender" on google, you'll find it
Found them; thanks! Your findings seem to match Gordon Laing's excellent review. Will test my copy vs the 100-500 that I still have and then make the decision about selling that 100-500. But, considering the fact I also have a 400 2.8 (that also works very well with extenders), there's a high probabiliy I'm letting go of it.
Just curious; how do you find autofocus when the 2x extender is in use?
p.1 #16 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
The autofocus was acting strange on me on my first shoot on my R6 Mark III. When i took it to the zoo, It would focus hunt for a bit in low light areas i was under, even if the subject was under bright light. I had it on Servo mode and the autofocus area at one point. I would toggle the switch from full to infinity or the other way around and that would fix it. I think I was having those issues because of my autofocus area setting and due to me being new to the lens.
I've been having none of those issues when it's been mounted on my r7 and shooting in bright conditions outside. Autofocus is fast and autofocus tracking is amazing even on those small birds.
p.1 #17 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
Well, I picked up my copy this morning and oh my.. this lens is so good, it should be illegal!
The best zoom I've ever owned for sure. It's perfect. The weight and balance on the R5, sharpness, AF and the short zoom throw are pure bliss. And the performance with both 1.4 and 2x extender is mind blowing! With the 2x, even in the corners it's holding up pretty good vs the 100-500. Overall, it's near impossible to distinguish them.
I forgot really how great a non-extending zoom is (in the past I had EF 70-200's). Now wishing for a non-extending 24-70 or something like that.
p.1 #18 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
The 100-300 is at the same level, if not even better.
The 'problem' with the 70-200Z that I'm having is that it's noticeable higher contrast and sharper than the 28-70/2, particularly backlit scenes. I actually like that the 28-70 is not super 'clinical' at or near wide open yet still quite sharp. It remains my mainstay event coverage lens in its focal length range. It's just that editing images where there is some coverage overlap around 70mm, the differences are noticeable, at least to me. The Z images 'pop' more in the plane of focus, but 70mm is also where the 28-70 is weakest. I can't help but wonder if a xx-70/2 v2 will land sooner than later given how much Sony has cut weight, size and boosted optical performance with their recent version in the 8 years since the v1 was released.
In any case, the 28-70/2 image quality characteristics have always implied to me last-gen EF ported to RF, whereas recent RF lenses like the Z duo and 100-300 are thoroughly "RF" if that makes sense.
p.1 #19 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
I had this lens with me yesterday for a portrait assignment and it's a banger of a lens.. tack sharp, fabulous focus and that short zoom throw is wonderful. The iq test and charts don't give this lens enough credit
p.1 #20 · Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Z + 2x vs 100-500
To my sports shooting friends in this thread: as a one camera, one lens setup, would you be more inclined to pick up the 1.4x or the 2x for outdoor soccer with the 70-200 2.8 Z? I primarily shoot indoor basketball and always just use the native range for that (plus my primes), but am pretty out of my element when it comes to field sports. I'm inclined to grab the 1.4x, simply because it seems like it might be more useful indoors for later in the year, but I don't know how useful it is to be able to go all the way out to 400mm for soccer (at the cost of light and the short end of the range).
